Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Unintended consequences of moving toward marriage equality

The Episcopal Church’s triennial General Convention,
its central legislative body, met in Salt Lake City earlier this summer. General
Convention elected the Rt. Rev. Michael Curry as the Episcopal Church’s next
Presiding Bishop (cf. the Ethical Musings’ post, Now that we have elected
Bishop Curry as Presiding Bishop) and eliminated gender bias from its teachings
about marriage and liturgies for celebrating marriage.

General Convention’s approval of marriage equality
appears to have attempted a “big tent” approach to the problem. However, Resolutions
A036 and A054 may have also sown the seeds for an unintentional harvest of
schism.

Allowing individual members of the clergy to refuse
to officiate at any marriage for any reason continues longstanding practice. The
resolutions appropriately expand this provision to include all couples who
request the cleric to officiate at their marriage.

This is not a problem. Some clerics and even some
congregations will persist for decades in refusing to accept marriage equality.
Neither the cleric nor a congregation comprised of similar minded people should
be penalized. Indeed, a few clerics and scattered congregations still refuse to
utilize the 1979 Book of Common Prayer (BCP). With the approval of the
cognizant diocesan bishop, this remnant clings to the 1928 BCP. Those unable to
live in today’s Episcopal Church departed the fold long ago. Similarly, those
clergy and laity unable to exist in a Church that supports marriage equality mostly
departed years ago.

However, allowing a diocesan bishop to prohibit
same sex marriage rites within the bishop’s diocese can become divisive and
potentially lead to schism. In those relatively few dioceses in which the
incumbent diocesan bishop will refuse to authorize rites for same sex marriage,
opposition to marriage equality can easily harden. Laity supportive of marriage
equality may opt to leave an Episcopal congregation to attend a congregation of
a denomination that practices marriage equality. Clergy committed to marriage
equality will likely regard the diocese’s exclusionary stance as a negative
factor in the process of deciding whether to accept a new call. Conversely,
clergy and laity opposed to marriage equality may the diocese’s position
attractive.

In time, among some of this handful of dioceses,
one’s attitude about marriage equality may even become a litmus test for
candidates in electing a new diocesan bishop, hiring key diocesan staff,
screening ordinands, and filling vacant parishes. A similar polarization has
occurred within the Church of England over the ordination of women, threatening
its unity. Unlike the Church of England, the Episcopal Church is much less
securely bound together.

Furthermore, some US dioceses cover large
geographical areas. Pointing couples whose marriage a diocese refuses to
celebrate to another diocese can create an illusion of having met people’s
needs when such recommendations may actually be rather impractical, especially
for couples of limited financial means. Access to the Church’s rites should not
be contingent upon one’s geography or wealth.

General Convention authorizing diocesan bishops to
opt out of marriage equality should be only an interim measure. Soon – very
soon – every diocese needs to support marriage equality. A diocesan bishop who
objects – like any member of the clergy – should be able to opt out, but
personally and not for his/her diocese. (Interestingly, none of the eighteen bishops
who signed the minority report were female! Perhaps bishops who are women tend to
be more inclusive or perhaps they know personally the pain of being excluded.)

The 2018 General Convention should modify the
canons to authorize a diocesan to delegate to another bishop (e.g., a
suffragan, assisting bishop, or diocesan in an adjoining diocese) any personal
involvement in same sex marriages (e.g., approval of remarriage of divorced
persons). This provision would honor theological diversity without imposing
what many persons will perceive as bigotry on others, avoids the potential for
honoring diversity hardening into a litmus test that eventually raises the
specter of schism, and prioritizes caring for God’s people above respecting sensitive
episcopal consciences.

2 comments:

Or perhaps there's no such thing as a conservative female bishop/priest. Female priests have struggled to find a long term place in this diocese and sometimes the local parish feels like the bishop is trying to force a female priest down their throats. One parish, decided to look at candidates without personal info--and still all the candidates they were interested in were men. The women priests didn't believe in the resurrection, or did believe in CWOB, or wrote their own liturgies or whatever.I admit, I also assume a female priest is a flaming liberal as I've never met one that wasn't.